Re: pedigrees, breeding, etc.

["Whitney Bass" <bass@bigsky.net>]

I'm afraid you're confusing me, Heidi -- in one post you are saying that if
we know the ancestors well enough, we will not be surprised with the
"result".  Then in this post, it is made clear that no matter how well you
know the ancestors, you DON'T REALLY know what the "result" will be
(because most all horses are going to have a flawed ancestor SOMEWHERE in
their pedigree, that can randomly show up, right?).  

----------
> From: CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com
> To: kmhicks1@juno.com; ridecamp@endurance.net
> Subject: RC:   pedigrees, breeding, etc.
> Date: Friday, February 04, 2000 2:20 PM
> 
> In a message dated 2/4/00 11:46:37 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
> kmhicks1@juno.com writes:
> 
> << When I was in High School I raised goats for an FFA project.  I bought
>  two does that were out of full sisters and by the same sire.  One was
>  MUCH nicer than the other.  I bred them to the same buck and then bred
>  those does to the same buck. Know what?  The line out of the nicer doe
>  was so much better that they didn't even look related, even though in
>  blood they were identical.  Pedigree only gets you so far.  >>
> 
> Remember--pedigrees are NOT blueprints--they are a set of possibilities. 

> Your better doe clearly got better genes from the shuffle than her her
full 
> sister did.  And that is where being a skilled breeder comes
in--recognizing 
> which individuals got which genes, and breeding the next generation 
> accordingly, instead of just looking at the pieces of paper.  The fact 
> remains--the qualities (or lack thereof) of BOTH does were represented in
the 
> pedigree, somewhere.
> 
> Heidi
> 
> 
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.    
> Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp   
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=